were being developed, when the plan for notre left behind was developed in the state. most of the people in the committee, to my benefit, were title one directors. so i learned a lot about how districts do it. i have to frankly say there are people there who were concerned that we were limiting the number of providers in a way that may be was not allowable. but there was a lot of discussion that there were a lot of less than effective providers in the state, on the state list. the committee was instrumental in having some kind of allowable, under the federal government regulations, evaluations.

the pattern -- there was a huge list of providers. the quality of the services was enormously variable from the people who were reported by title 1 directors to take the money and never provide any service for kids, which was apparently allowable under those regulations, to the people that we on the time were pretty much only contract in with, so widely recognized organizations. princeton review, etc.. these contracts here, and also the administratively approved ones, i saw, had a response numbers. one provider with for students or three students -- four students or three students. we at the budget committee said

we would ask the curriculum committee to take this up, but i really want the board to be involved in a discussion about the process that we are now using, how we assess the effectiveness, how week -- for instance, one of the things i learned at the committee, years ago, was that there was a pop -- and i should say at least that there is a lot of -- you know, these are services many school districts did not think for a very effective way to spend these federal dollars to help students. it was a process or an opportunity that was presumed to, or known to, largely be the result of lobbying by private providers to the federal government when no child left behind was passed. we were setting up some rules for our own providers and our own schools that seemed logical to me. we asked that services have to

be provided at the school site. many other districts were prohibiting providing days of the school site. we thought there was an opportunity to have alignment between these tutoring students as -- is to trim services and instruction at the schools. we thought that limit to the number of providers -- at the time, we used a process that was take all the students that are eligible at a certain school, ask their parents to vote, and then have one provider at their school. we would not have four people being tutored by this service and six by this service. have we changed that? do we think it is better this way? do we think it is effective? do we look at effectiveness? have we had interaction with the state department or other regulators about how we do it? is it aligned with our instructional programs? do we think it is effective? all those kind of things. i want to caution the board that

as we all know, no child left behind has not been reauthorize. given the recent political developments, it is anybody's guess when it is. and what that means, sadly, is that some of these principles of spending that are embodied in the current law may be with us a lot longer than we thought there would be. -- than we thought they would be two weeks ago. president kim: let me say a couple of things, and then i am going to turn it to the person who supervises this process. as the law exists now, the department of education -- the california department of education -- is a body that approves providers of these services. there is a statewide list. and the parents have the absolute right, if their students are eligible, if their

children are eligible, to be provided with these services. it is their choice which provider provides the services. and we are to inhabited -- we are prohibited from trying to persuade parents to go with one provider or another. that is the context. i think we all agree with you that this is not a very effective or efficient use of these resources, which amount to quite a bit of money. but that is the law that we are living with and now we have to abide by. i am going to ask jorge to provide the details of the process we are using now and what sorts of resources we have in terms of evaluating services and so forth. >> good evening, commissioners. i am glad to be here again. i had the distinct honor to now serve on the committee of petitioners' myself. i was appointed last year. i am happy to report that things

have advanced in the state. as of last year, there were new rules and regulations executed that allow the state to actually eliminate providers who do not have data provided to the state that document the effectiveness of their work with california students. so they are monitoring and assuring that everyone on the list has been vetted by them in a much more thorough process than the past. on the local front, we also are working with our parent liaisons' directly, or other designees as dedicated to this task by the principals, and they are reporting to us to assure the service is quality. anytime the parents are not getting services or the tutors are late, etc., we monitor the quality of services going in and going out. there are not that many hours provided by these dollars. the services and of being spent -- a number of the vendors want

5 students per session in order to want their ends meet. i too am troubled by the way in which these things are set up. it is a federal mandate. under our current contract system, we are able to eliminate providers for any number of infractions. thanks to the legal office, we have a tighter contract than either before. that allows us to throw folks out who are not doing what they need to for our kids. at this time, as we will continue throughout the year, you will be getting constant amendments as we chase down what families tell us, which providers the want, and providers telling us the will or will not serve. obviously, there must be a better way of doing this, but at this point the fed will government depends on this system instead of trusting the district or the schools to set up their own tutorials. commissioner wynns: are all these services being provided on school sites? >> the providers have now three

options for providing services. one is the can be on school sites. they can also be in a publication agreeable and allowed by the family, such as a library or the parent's home. what is a new or growing phenomenon is there is also on mine tutoring, where there is nobody there, but there is tutoring services that caused a great deal of issues. that was turned to the petitioners about the legality. if there are any issues about student harm or the person is not within state lines for the country, that can be controlled. the new age of the web-based support services have caused a new angle on things. another phenomenon we have seen happening is that a lot of these companies are starting to use resources the giveaway, such as a laptop at the end of the tutoring service, to be an incentive to be recruiting families. we have made sure they

understand that is legal. you cannot offer more than $50 up front, but families talk. when someone got a resource, a lot of phillies will go down this half -- a lot of families will go down this path. that is a new phenomenon as of last year. commissioner norton: wow. i apologize. i am going to ask some questions that some people have the answers to. how much money are talking about? >> is roughly 1300 to $1,400. the figure changes each year. i have to look it up on the internet, but it is around that. per student eligible. that is right. depending on the amount of dollars per tutoring session,

anywhere from $20 to $70. you can do the math there about how many hours of the bill we are provided. commissioner norton: i was interested in the answer to commissioner wynns's question. you said there were three options for where they can provide the service. did we change our policy? it sounded like the previously said it had to be on the school site and we are not saying that anymore. >> there is a right to allow the tutoring to happen in a location that is amenable for the parents. if that is the way in which tutoring is offered, the parent selects that tudor to be in that kind of set up, we have to abide by that. commissioner norton: if the parent chooses an on-line service, there is nothing we can do with that? >> that is correct. it is the parents' choice. in this district, we send out a letter and ask parents to rank their top three choices. you can imagine with 40

providers and 25 schools, and thousands of kids trying to make it all worked out, we can calculate the contracts and renew the amendments each time. it ends up being a full person's job just to manage the work, which probably could be better done if it was allowed to be an option within the districts control with one company we trust, but that is how we set up -- but that is how it is set up. commissioner wynns: could you tell us, just for the record, just how much the whole amount of money is? >> yes, i can. but i will have to look up. it is something to the effect of $800,000. commissioner wynns: the state

does not recommend providers. the state does not say this is a good provider. what they are mandated to do, if they make it on the list, they can become providers. the me thresholds which have very little to do with effectiveness. it has to do with filling out the forms correctly, asserting that you are going to do this. there are very little -- there is no, "have you actually helped kids do better in school?" just so the parents -- just so the community understands the intention of the law here. do we have something in our contracts that requires them to align their work with the construction all -- the instructional program in our schools? >> it does say that, but of course it is a stretch. there is a computer-based mathematics program that does but a difference with our kids. if the school means a

performance with mathematics -- at the present time, the degrees of control are not what i think would be significant for what we are after in our strategic plan. so i am hoping that there will be changes in the law that will allow us to have much more authority over what is happening. commissioner wynns: my last question is are we conducting -- are collecting data about the performance of students who take advantage of this service, and also the various providers to kids who do not? >> all the contracts require pre-published data, but of course it is according to their measure. commissioner wynns: i understand, but that is not what i am saying. within our own data collection on a student basis, are we looking at -- we are going to need it -- i appreciate the

delicate way that we have all been talking here about what we think is some kind of, at the very least, poorly, you know, poor judgment on the part of the federal government, saying we are going to take a large part of money to support poor kids and say it goes to private providers, regardless of the effectiveness. however, when this hopefully eventually comes up for reauthorization and you are looking at this method of this -- supposedly helping kids who need extra help, we are going to need data to show what we think of it, even though there will not be -- there will be very little disagreement among school districts as to the effectiveness of spending money this way, in my experience. but we still are going to need that data, because the providers are going to assert this is just a great idea and we are doing so

much better by spending money in this way. >> definitely, we are collecting data. whether that data can be compared from one source to another source, when there are different ways of collecting data -- whether that data is useful is a different item? we are more than happy to do an analysis of the data collected. it does have interest to us. there can be a correlation made with substantial statistical liability, probably, the would allow us to compare scores and see if there is an aftereffect. that would be in our best interest. commissioner wynns: ok. we will explore that. thank you. president kim: thank you. roll call, please. [roll is called] commissioner norton: reluctantly, yes. president kim: our next item is

item q, superintendents proposals for first reading. we have won tonight, authorization to grant or to deny the international school's petition for a new charter school. i made a motion and i need a second. commissioner yee: second. president kim: this will be referred to curriculum committee and budget committee. the next is board members' proposals, item r, for first reading. it is in support of denouncing the deportation of shing ma "steve" li, a dream at student at city college of san francisco. we need a movement to suspend

rules. [roll call vote] >> five ayes. president kim: may we have a motion and second for a formal introduction? i will do the reading of the resolution. our resolution is in support of denouncing the deportation of shing ma steve li, a dream at student at city college of san francisco. this is bipartisan legislation addresses the plight of young people brought to the united states as immigrant children, who have since kept out of trouble. each year, 65,000 united states-

raised students to qualify for the been -- who qualify for the dream act frederick from high school. assistant senate majority leader dick durbin asked the u.s. department of homeland security secretary, janet napolitano, to halt the deportation of immigrants students who could earn legal status under the dream act. it has the support of the house and senate leadership, all the relative committee shares, and our military leaders, including colin powell. in 2010, before the national hispanic caucus, president obama stated he would do whatever it takes to support the efforts to pass this bill, so he can sign it into law on behalf of students seeking a college education and those who wish to serve in our country's uniform. it is the right thing to do. steve li is a junior in city college who aspires to be a health care worker.

he graduated from george washington high school as well as hoover middle school, where he was an editor and reporter for the school newspaper and ran on the track and cross-country team. he is scheduled to graduate in september 2011. he entered the u.s. when he was about 12 years old and was ordered removed from the united states to peru when he was 14. he has no knowledge of the deportation because he was a derivative beneficiary of his mother's political asylum application. when the judge denied that her status, that denied his status in the u.s. where he was a minor. he was never reformed -- he was never informed he was a fugitive in the united states. he was arrested along with his parents pursuant to an ice directive called the fugitive program. it was intended to target dangerous fugitive immigrants, but instead has swept up young adopted children who never knew they had been ordered to move. this does not serve any national security progress. where as he is dream act

eligible, and his deportation to peru should be halted, we should read his application for deferred action and allow him to remain in the u.s.. protect children -- deporting dream our children is unfair and a violation of their constitutional rights. while the immigration system is broken, deporting immigrants children is up the answer. the san francisco school board recognizes the support of the city and community college, including his mentor, professors, classmates, law caucus, and the asian-pacific american community. the community has called, emailed, and written over 500 letters to senator feinstein and speaker policy asking a speak out against deportation. unless the dream act is passed by congress, all deportation of immigrant children should be stopped. unless the dream act is passed, steve li should be released from

beo remain in the u.s. until the deferred action plan. and that senator boxer offer a bill. i did want to read the entire resolution because i am not sure if everyone is familiar with the story. at this time, we are calling for public speakers. please line up. >> i will go. i am sorry, i forgot to actually

do public comment for the superintendent's proposal. my apologies for that. we will the that after this reading. we have three public speakers. >> i am a faculty member at city college of san francisco. steve, as you have heard, was a graduate of the san francisco unified school district. an energetic, bright, and promising young man. he was on his way to transfer to san francisco state university where he would go and serve the communities. he is a great example of what our education system can do here in san prince it is. i think it is appalling at this point that the young man that wants nothing more than an education to give back is now

being deported. it is a great example of what exactly is broken with our immigration system at this time. he happens to be chinese ethnically, but is not just an issue for those communities, is an issue for all americans. it is one that we should all be paying attention to a little bit more. i am here to basically -- allow us to speak to you. this afternoon, the board of supervisors passed a similar resolution. the board of trustees also passed -- we hope it brings light to this very important issue. thank you.

>> good evening president kim and the commissioners. steve and i are good friends. every time we hang out, we are always laughing and he is just one of the most fun loving people i have ever met. that is why it really hurts me that something so horrible as happening to him. he has been detained in arizona for over 50 days where he is being treated like a criminal. he will have nobody with him and he has no family there. he is no less of an american that i am. we listened to the same music,

so what separates him and die? -- and i? we want to make ourselves and the something that our parents have worked so hard for and raised us to be. i would like to urge you all to please help us pass item r and bring steve back home to where he belongs in america. >> my name is peter and i graduated from high school, abraham lincoln high school. i am currently at city college in san francisco. when i first met him, we became really good friends and he is really genuine. i was shocked because a guy like

steve, for him to be arrested, a guy like him is very kind and helpful. he is studying to be a nurse. not only does he want to help people, but by helping them -- him -- maybe he can help you guys later on because if he becomes a nurse and you guys turn sick, which we don't want to happen, if it ever happens, steve could help you. because he wants to be a nurse. president kim: any comments or

questions from the board? i want to thank you for bringing this resolution for us -- to us. i think it is important that we support our students that are here in the u.s. and have worked very hard. we're grateful that you have brought this to us. roll call. >> [roll call vote] six ayes. president kim: thank you. i am actually going back to eisenhower -- item q.

i forgot that we give five minutes of public comment for the first reading items. i believe that there are two speakers? when speaker? -- one speaker? great, two minutes. >> good evening. okay. i want to thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly about the proposal for a new charter school in san and cisco. with me -- sandra it is. with me are some of the volunteers -- san francisco. with me are some of the volunteers. and also, there are a number of other members on the team that could not be here this evening.

but we have been working diligently on this. we are eager to work with the committees and all of the commissioners to bring it our alternative choice to families and students in san francisco. the proposal that we have submitted through the office -- includes a strong, diverse cultural influences. the teacher facilitated program with an emphasis on group processes and related skills resulting in powerful learning teams and including exemplary participation on many levels. over the last eight years, parents want their children to be able to continue in a public be able to continue in a public elementary school like the